Our Atco race track day we will have 1/4 mile and rolling racing deff because i know m33 will be done for it in our safe mexico.

IMO the rolling race is a much better indicator of how each kit performs. A bad launch can destroy an accurate representation of how Kit A compares to Kit B. If both cars are sitting at 45 MPH, XX RPMS in the same gear & just told to go for it, (in theory) the better kit will reveal itself

B. Your intention is not to share knowledge with the community and I think people have noticed just a bit.

C. You have been called out on all of your so called factual information as inaccurate

D. Keep digging yourself into a hole.

Im not even sure how to reply to this feeble attempt to derail this thread. Your best attempt at a reply is a gif, following by a "bull faced lie".

You question my intent; however, not once have you made an attempt to correct my so called inaccurate information. Call me crazy but if they were so inaccurate, you should be having a field day with my first post... instead you resort to making a list of nothing.

That being said, given that you run a Burger Tune on your personal car, i think that pretty much says it all...

We've progressed to the point of nothingness, this thread has lost all meaning and is going nowhere... These forums are open to discussion but sometimes our favorite avenue to discuss our passion for cars can sometimes be too informal and take wrong turns.

If anyone would like to have a private discussion about supercharger systems please contact me and i will be happy to oblige.

I have taken notes that a few members found my direct attitude to be a down right brash and i take your opinions to heart and it has been noted.

I just wanted to touch on a few points that have been brought up about both kits. I do not say the ESS kit is bad in any way or want to drag them through this mud for any reason. I do however want to clarify why some decisions were made and what the benefits are for making those decisions.

Originally Posted by Jean@VelosDesignwerks

While the AA system requires the compressed air to travel quite a bit before entering the intake manifold, it much travel around a few 90 degree bends and actually go full circle before reaching the intake manifold, if you study physics you will see why this is not ideal.

A little background on superchargers: they take power to make power (we can go deeper into this by request but it has been discussed many times over).
Considering above, the ESS system does not have to work as hard to make the required boost to achieve the required power output; however, the AA system not only has to travel much longer distances but it also have to enter the intercooler half way between it's travel. During testing the AA system has to actually make a few extra pounds of boost to compensate for the few pounds of boost that are lost during the travel and from the intercooler. Which in turn forces the engine to work harder because it has to create more boost and is actually forced to work harder to compensate for a less efficient system.

Yes, having more charge piping and a longer tract before you hit the throttle bodies is not ideal. The best route is to make the piping as short as possible. I think the ESS was designed more for installer ease than performance. Can you tell me exactly why travelling around a 90* bend is not ideal? Does it cause more friction, heat, velocity etc?

Our intercoolers do experience a bit of pressure drop from one side to the other. Pressure drop does not equate to lost power necessarily as power is not directly related to a boost pressure but rather flow. This also does not cause the engine to work harder. 90% of the power lost from a supercharger is due to its internal gearing and the force required to spin the compressor, not the resistance of the air entering the engine.

Originally Posted by Jean@VelosDesignwerks

Charge cooling: I want to be the first to recognize the improvements of aftercooling as an effective method of charge cooling, i have been a long time believer of intercooling and refused to admit aftercooling could be efficient.

The method of charge cooling should dictated by the platform and the system to find the most efficient method. In our case, space is an issue which is probably a big reason improvements in aftercooling have been addressed over the past few years. For example: the N54 which was the first recent turbo model by BMW was intercooled; however, the S63TU found the M5 is aftercooled and makes more power. Which makes my point that the method should be dictated by the platform.

Going back to the Boost section above, running an aftercooler allows the compressed air to reach the engine with less restriction and at the same time placing less load on the engine to make power.

Aftercooler vs. Intercooler. 99% of the time aftercooling is chosen for packaging purposes. Intercooler systems are simpler, easier to maintain, and tend to more consistent for cooling the charge air. This is not to say that aftercoolers are completely inefficient but, the water in the system can get heatsoked. The air travelling around and through the intercooler is always fresh, only the core gets heatsoaked. So one system has a constant stream of new fresh "cooler" air while another fights to cool down the water in a radiator sandwiched near an A/C condensor, radiator, and oil cooler.

Originally Posted by Jean@VelosDesignwerks

Tuning: Tuning is just as important as the hardware as it needs to be perfected to allow the car to make power and make it safely but tuning also plays a hand in regards to power delivery and the overall user experience provided by the system.

The first is the throttle response. The ESS system feels like a wire, the response is instant and smooth but powerful, with traction off and street tires on a 20" wheel the car will get away from you in third gear if you allow it too.

The AA system is smooth but it has a weird hesitation around 3K which could be attributed to the design of the system since the compressed air has to travel quite a bit (compared to the ESS System) or it could be software. This hesitation can be exaggerated based driving style or not be noticed at all based on driving style.

Second is the power delivery at redline. The ESS system revs cleanly to redline. If anyone has driven a stock E92 M3, you know that as you approach redline the throttle starts to close and if you hit redline it's a soft redline, you dont bang on it like the E46 M3. It seems AA has not figured this out and it gives the driver a weird drop off as you close in on redline, where the ESS system feels like it just wants to keep going. The only thing possible is to shift early once you've become accustomed to the system however, you are then missing out on a few hundred RPM of the power band given AA lowers the redline and you still need to shift early. This dip/drop off is seen on all dyno charts.

I have not driven an ESS car and can not comment on the rev limiter. I would believe that they leave the stock system in place as it is hard-coded in the software of the car and would take extensive re-writing to delete this feature. Yes, the throttles begin to close right before redline and it looks obvious in a dyno but, when you drive the car going from 8100-8300 rpm takes about a quarter of a second. Losing horsepower in this time frame is completely negligible and this limiter system is much MUCH easier on the motor that a hard fuel cut.

Originally Posted by Jean@VelosDesignwerks

The system as a whole and going back to stock: Both systems can be installed by the end user; however, the AA system requires more parts due to the systems design. It also requires quite a bit of cutting compared to the ESS system. The ESS system includes any factory parts that require cutting so you actually retain the stock part that is modified instead of actually modifying your actual stock part. This plays a big role in going back to stock as with the AA system you will need to purchase a few parts to successfully put your car back to 100% factory form.

ESS has the upper hand on this one. Their system is extremely user friendly and easy to install and uninstall. The choice to use a front mount intercooler has increased the complexity of our kit but we believe in it's efficiency and convenience enough to make this sacrifice.

Originally Posted by Jean@VelosDesignwerks

Meth: Meth has been one of the quickest ways to make more horsepower and provide an edge to anyone looking for one. However, i am not sure if requiring your system to use meth is the best method of making power. The ESS systems make more power without meth while the comparable level 2 AA system makes less power with meth. It is an added piece of the system which add to the systems install difficulty and could be a turn off for the DIY member. It is also something else that requires maintenance. Some other aftermarket systems come with some sort of light or gauge when your tank is empty, hopefully AA can add this to their system as it should have already been included.

Meth is another added complexity to our system. It is very labor intensive. However, it's benefits are worth the time and effort. It cools down the charge air considerably, adds a level of protection for the engine beyond the built in ECU functions, and helps make a little extra power. Our controller has a debug function and features an LED on the controller as well as one that can be wired in and located in plain view for the driver, this system has been in place for at least a few years. We do make a bit less peak power, but with your experience you would know that knock tends to occur much more in the midrange that at the top of the power band.

I just wanted to touch on a few points that have been brought up about both kits. I do not say the ESS kit is bad in any way or want to drag them through this mud for any reason. I do however want to clarify why some decisions were made and what the benefits are for making those decisions.

Thanks for replying to my orignal post.

Originally Posted by Zak@activeautowerke

Yes, having more charge piping and a longer tract before you hit the throttle bodies is not ideal. The best route is to make the piping as short as possible. I think the ESS was designed more for installer ease than performance. Can you tell me exactly why travelling around a 90* bend is not ideal? Does it cause more friction, heat, velocity etc?

Our intercoolers do experience a bit of pressure drop from one side to the other. Pressure drop does not equate to lost power necessarily as power is not directly related to a boost pressure but rather flow. This also does not cause the engine to work harder. 90% of the power lost from a supercharger is due to its internal gearing and the force required to spin the compressor, not the resistance of the air entering the engine.

Basically the flow is disrupted after going through so many bends; in short, the flow and energy that is coming from the compressor is not able to take the easiest path to the manifold. As you mentioned, there is a pressure drop and added with the travel it may not be as ideal of a situation like the other system that basically travels just about directly into the manifold.

We agree that supercharges to take a percentage from the crank to compress air. The goal is to make x amount of boost to make y amount of power, the pressure loss above has to be factored in and in turn the boost that we see in the manifold is actually x - the pressure that was lost in order to achieve your goal of y horsepower.

Originally Posted by Zak@activeautowerke

Aftercooler vs. Intercooler. 99% of the time aftercooling is chosen for packaging purposes. Intercooler systems are simpler, easier to maintain, and tend to more consistent for cooling the charge air. This is not to say that aftercoolers are completely inefficient but, the water in the system can get heatsoked. The air travelling around and through the intercooler is always fresh, only the core gets heatsoaked. So one system has a constant stream of new fresh "cooler" air while another fights to cool down the water in a radiator sandwiched near an A/C condensor, radiator, and oil cooler.

As mentioned, i think the charge cooling method should be chosen by the project and platform. Air-to-air vs Air-to-water can be debated for months; however, i personally feel Air-to-water is preferable for this application.

Originally Posted by Zak@activeautowerke

I have not driven an ESS car and can not comment on the rev limiter. I would believe that they leave the stock system in place as it is hard-coded in the software of the car and would take extensive re-writing to delete this feature. Yes, the throttles begin to close right before redline and it looks obvious in a dyno but, when you drive the car going from 8100-8300 rpm takes about a quarter of a second. Losing horsepower in this time frame is completely negligible and this limiter system is much MUCH easier on the motor that a hard fuel cut.

I understand as you can't comment on the other system; once you reach redline, the system reacts the same, your just allowed to maintain throttle position longer.

Originally Posted by Zak@activeautowerke

ESS has the upper hand on this one. Their system is extremely user friendly and easy to install and uninstall. The choice to use a front mount intercooler has increased the complexity of our kit but we believe in it's efficiency and convenience enough to make this sacrifice.

Thanks for being honest.

Originally Posted by Zak@activeautowerke

Meth is another added complexity to our system. It is very labor intensive. However, it's benefits are worth the time and effort. It cools down the charge air considerably, adds a level of protection for the engine beyond the built in ECU functions, and helps make a little extra power. Our controller has a debug function and features an LED on the controller as well as one that can be wired in and located in plain view for the driver, this system has been in place for at least a few years. We do make a bit less peak power, but with your experience you would know that knock tends to occur much more in the midrange that at the top of the power band.

Glad to see the level sensor has been added in.

The knocking aspect really depends on the overall system and software as a whole. The two chargers in question have different sweet spots and it's up to the manufacturer to consider this and develop the kit accordingly.

My comment on meth is basically on the side that it is nice to not require it because as you mentioned its an added complexity to the system.

I want to once again thank you for addressing my post and commenting where you saw fit.

Your close by, i will gladly take you out for a beer as there are no hard feelings.